4 ms·

You'd have to define trust to understand and then answer the question. Trust is the inverse of what most people think it is. Trust isn't about what someone wi

by buro9 13y ago

You'd have to define trust to understand and then answer the question. Trust is the inverse of what most people think it is. Trust isn't about what someone will do, it's about what they won't do. You might trust a guy with your life by asking him to hold a ladder whilst you climb up it, but you probably wouldn't trust the same guy with your medical history and insights into your state of mind and personal relationships. Yet you would trust a doctor with your medical history, and you would trust a psychiatrist with your mental wellbeing. The basis of trust is a belief that the person/entity you are trusting won't do something. In the case of that ladder, that the guy won't let go. In the case of the physician and psychiatrist that they won't share information about you. The NSA stuff can be seen in that light, there is a betrayal of trust as the basis for trust in a government spy agency was that they wouldn't do a certain thing... spy on their own people. The rest is all forgiveable (you pretty much should expect them to spy on everyone else whether you agree with it or not, that's their purpose). When it comes to Bruce Schneier the question is "Do you trust Bruce Schneier?", but this seems to just beg the next question, "To not do what?". I trust Bruce Schneier to not sacrifice his own principles and belief system in backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work. But I don't necessarily trust Bruce Schneier to hold a ladder that I'm standing on (he may well have a sense of humour that reflects silent cinema, and being up a ladder was never a good thing when a Loki character was holding it).

Amadou 13y ago
When it comes to Bruce Schneier the question is "Do you trust Bruce Schneier?", but this seems to just beg the next question, "To not do what?". If you had read really short article, the "next question" is: "To not mislead us about what he has read in the leaked NSA documents."
- buro9 13y ago
  I did read it, and the answer remains the same: > I trust Bruce Schneier to not sacrifice his own principles and belief system in backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work. To mislead would be to compromise his own work.
  - onion2k 13y ago
    That would depend on what his work actually is. If it's to promote the understanding and application of cryptography and security, as we believe it to be, then misleading people would certainly compromise what he does. If, on the other hand, Bruce is an NSA shill, then misleading people would in no way compromise his work - it would be his work. As much as we all might respect Bruce we should remain reasonably open to the idea that he can be wrong (maliciously or otherwise). In essence, we shouldn't let a single expert, now matter how good they appear to be, become a single point of failure in our understanding of a complex subject.
    - dfxm12 13y ago
      In this context, "his work" could also include password safe: https://www.schneier.com/passsafe.html https://www.schneier.com/passsafe.html It is open source. You are free to inspect it and see if it has backdoors. Likewise with Twofish: https://www.schneier.com/twofish.html https://www.schneier.com/twofish.html This is quite the long con if you think he's been developing, advocating and promoting free (as in speech) software for years just in case this NSA thing got out of hand. I agree we shouldn't let a single expert become a single point of failure in our understanding of security, but that's missing the point in this discussion. Based on Schneier's long history of work, including advocating open source solutions, he's earned my trust, but the great thing is that because he's such an advocate for open source, you can check the code. Likewise, if you're reading something he's written, you can check his sources. You don't have to trust him. You can do your own fact checking!
      - pdpi 13y ago
        But now you're actually arguing why he _should_ be trusted, rather than just taking it as a matter of faith, which was the whole point of the exercise.
tslathrow 13y ago
Astute. edit: thanks (didn't know what a Loki was)
- buro9 13y ago
  Loki is a Norse God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki He's frequently referred to as the `God of Mischief` in that he's a trickster and capricious by nature.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
stinos 13y ago
I think I get your point, but I feel you should try to bring it in a different way, without reverting to pure semantics play. To illustrate: I might as well say "In the case of that ladder, that the guy will hold on tight. In the case of the physician and psychiatrist that they will keep your information for themselves." And suddenly trust is all about what someone will do.
- frogpelt 13y ago
  Think of it this way: if a person won't tell a lie that person is always truthful. But if a person will tell the truth, that person may or may not always be truthful.
relate 13y ago
You'd have to define trust to understand and then answer the question. Trust is the inverse of what most people think it is. Trust isn't about what someone won't do, it's about what they will do. You might trust a guy with your life by asking him to hold a ladder whilst you climb up it, but you probably wouldn't trust the same guy with your medical history and insights into your state of mind and personal relationships. Yet you would trust a doctor with your medical history, and you would trust a psychiatrist with your mental wellbeing. The basis of trust is a belief that the person/entity you are trusting will do something. In the case of that ladder, that the guy will hold it. In the case of the physician and psychiatrist that they will keep your information private. The NSA stuff can be seen in that light, there is a betrayal of trust as the basis for trust in a government spy agency was that they would do a certain thing... spy only on foreign people. The rest is all forgiveable (you pretty much should expect them to spy on everyone else whether you agree with it or not, that's their purpose). When it comes to Bruce Schneier the question is "Do you trust Bruce Schneier?", but this seems to just beg the next question, "To do what?". I trust Bruce Schneier to honor his own principles and belief system by not backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work. But I don't necessarily trust Bruce Schneier to hold a ladder that I'm standing on (he may well have a sense of humour that reflects silent cinema, and being up a ladder was never a good thing when a Loki character was holding it).
cpt1138 13y ago
Thats a very interesting way of putting it. But why do you trust your doctor or psychiatrist? I would argue that we "know" Bruce Schneier from his writings and his works better than we know our doctors. The reason we "trust" our doctors is the implied and understood restrictions on sharing confidential medical data and not the character or works of the individuals (since we don't really know them). With the NSA, that implied restriction (Constitution, laws) has been breached.
Tloewald 13y ago
This is a silly bunch of pedantic twaddle along the lines of "never assume, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me". The tacit assumption is that we're trusting (or not) Bruce Schneier as a source of information in his subject domain, and not as a mental health professional or holder of ladders. Do you breathe? Wait -- breathe what? Is the sky blue? Which sky? Where? Let's define our terms! Was this message written in English or are you misreading fluent Alienese?
grannyg00se 13y ago
That's an interesting way to look at trust but it's highly dependent on your own internal thought process and phrasing. "I trust he WON'T let go of the ladder." That's the same as "I trust he WILL keep the ladder secured." I'd say trust isn't about what you think the person won't do. It's about the person living up to their word or implied contract. It can be phrased either as a will do or a won't do. Ladder guy holding it implies he will hold it securely. Doctor with private info implies he WON'T share it irresponsibly. That could also be worded as an expectation that he WILL keep it private. "I trust Bruce Schneier to not sacrifice his own principles and belief system in backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work." OR "I trust Bruce Schneier to be true to his principles and belief systems and maintain the integrity of his work."
frogpelt 13y ago
Based on your definition of trust (which I tend to agree with) you have to know the other party pretty intimately to know whether you can trust them. The Bruce Schneier you know wouldn't compromise his own principles and beliefs but what if the Bruce Schneier you know isn't real? What if those principles and beliefs never existed? Now we see why faith is requisite for living.
cruise02 13y ago
> You'd have to define trust to understand and then answer the question. Luckily there's a book that does that. Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-ebook/dp/B006ORT3KG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382546327&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-ebook/...

by buro9 13y ago

Amadou 13y ago

When it comes to Bruce Schneier the question is "Do you trust Bruce Schneier?", but this seems to just beg the next question, "To not do what?". If you had read really short article, the "next question" is: "To not mislead us about what he has read in the leaked NSA documents."

buro9 13y ago
I did read it, and the answer remains the same: > I trust Bruce Schneier to not sacrifice his own principles and belief system in backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work. To mislead would be to compromise his own work.
- onion2k 13y ago
  That would depend on what his work actually is. If it's to promote the understanding and application of cryptography and security, as we believe it to be, then misleading people would certainly compromise what he does. If, on the other hand, Bruce is an NSA shill, then misleading people would in no way compromise his work - it would be his work. As much as we all might respect Bruce we should remain reasonably open to the idea that he can be wrong (maliciously or otherwise). In essence, we shouldn't let a single expert, now matter how good they appear to be, become a single point of failure in our understanding of a complex subject.
  - dfxm12 13y ago
    In this context, "his work" could also include password safe: https://www.schneier.com/passsafe.html https://www.schneier.com/passsafe.html It is open source. You are free to inspect it and see if it has backdoors. Likewise with Twofish: https://www.schneier.com/twofish.html https://www.schneier.com/twofish.html This is quite the long con if you think he's been developing, advocating and promoting free (as in speech) software for years just in case this NSA thing got out of hand. I agree we shouldn't let a single expert become a single point of failure in our understanding of security, but that's missing the point in this discussion. Based on Schneier's long history of work, including advocating open source solutions, he's earned my trust, but the great thing is that because he's such an advocate for open source, you can check the code. Likewise, if you're reading something he's written, you can check his sources. You don't have to trust him. You can do your own fact checking!
    - pdpi 13y ago
      But now you're actually arguing why he _should_ be trusted, rather than just taking it as a matter of faith, which was the whole point of the exercise.

tslathrow 13y ago

Astute. edit: thanks (didn't know what a Loki was)

buro9 13y ago
Loki is a Norse God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki He's frequently referred to as the `God of Mischief` in that he's a trickster and capricious by nature.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

stinos 13y ago

I think I get your point, but I feel you should try to bring it in a different way, without reverting to pure semantics play. To illustrate: I might as well say "In the case of that ladder, that the guy will hold on tight. In the case of the physician and psychiatrist that they will keep your information for themselves." And suddenly trust is all about what someone will do.

frogpelt 13y ago
Think of it this way: if a person won't tell a lie that person is always truthful. But if a person will tell the truth, that person may or may not always be truthful.

relate 13y ago

You'd have to define trust to understand and then answer the question. Trust is the inverse of what most people think it is. Trust isn't about what someone won't do, it's about what they will do. You might trust a guy with your life by asking him to hold a ladder whilst you climb up it, but you probably wouldn't trust the same guy with your medical history and insights into your state of mind and personal relationships. Yet you would trust a doctor with your medical history, and you would trust a psychiatrist with your mental wellbeing. The basis of trust is a belief that the person/entity you are trusting will do something. In the case of that ladder, that the guy will hold it. In the case of the physician and psychiatrist that they will keep your information private. The NSA stuff can be seen in that light, there is a betrayal of trust as the basis for trust in a government spy agency was that they would do a certain thing... spy only on foreign people. The rest is all forgiveable (you pretty much should expect them to spy on everyone else whether you agree with it or not, that's their purpose). When it comes to Bruce Schneier the question is "Do you trust Bruce Schneier?", but this seems to just beg the next question, "To do what?". I trust Bruce Schneier to honor his own principles and belief system by not backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work. But I don't necessarily trust Bruce Schneier to hold a ladder that I'm standing on (he may well have a sense of humour that reflects silent cinema, and being up a ladder was never a good thing when a Loki character was holding it).

cpt1138 13y ago

Thats a very interesting way of putting it. But why do you trust your doctor or psychiatrist? I would argue that we "know" Bruce Schneier from his writings and his works better than we know our doctors. The reason we "trust" our doctors is the implied and understood restrictions on sharing confidential medical data and not the character or works of the individuals (since we don't really know them). With the NSA, that implied restriction (Constitution, laws) has been breached.

Tloewald 13y ago

This is a silly bunch of pedantic twaddle along the lines of "never assume, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me". The tacit assumption is that we're trusting (or not) Bruce Schneier as a source of information in his subject domain, and not as a mental health professional or holder of ladders. Do you breathe? Wait -- breathe what? Is the sky blue? Which sky? Where? Let's define our terms! Was this message written in English or are you misreading fluent Alienese?

grannyg00se 13y ago

That's an interesting way to look at trust but it's highly dependent on your own internal thought process and phrasing. "I trust he WON'T let go of the ladder." That's the same as "I trust he WILL keep the ladder secured." I'd say trust isn't about what you think the person won't do. It's about the person living up to their word or implied contract. It can be phrased either as a will do or a won't do. Ladder guy holding it implies he will hold it securely. Doctor with private info implies he WON'T share it irresponsibly. That could also be worded as an expectation that he WILL keep it private. "I trust Bruce Schneier to not sacrifice his own principles and belief system in backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work." OR "I trust Bruce Schneier to be true to his principles and belief systems and maintain the integrity of his work."

frogpelt 13y ago

Based on your definition of trust (which I tend to agree with) you have to know the other party pretty intimately to know whether you can trust them. The Bruce Schneier you know wouldn't compromise his own principles and beliefs but what if the Bruce Schneier you know isn't real? What if those principles and beliefs never existed? Now we see why faith is requisite for living.

cruise02 13y ago

> You'd have to define trust to understand and then answer the question. Luckily there's a book that does that. Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-ebook/dp/B006ORT3KG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382546327&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-ebook/...